|
How many volunteers were present at the Congress? : |
1500 se |
|
Delegates from which countries presented in the congress? : |
England , Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Holand |
|
Were the delegates of any other organizations present in the congress? : |
No |
|
If yes, please write the names of the organizations in the box : |
|
|
What were the responses to your talking points? Were specific questions or concerns raised? : |
yes participants ask me some questions about the Iranain culture and also we discuss about the necessity of trust between doctor and patients in different cultures. |
|
If you met staff members, please list their full names & positions. : |
Professor Ronald Harden- head of congress
Professor Brian Hodges winner of Karolinska Institutet Award in 2016 |
|
Please inform us if there are any follow up actions we need to talk with the members of the congress : |
i have make connection with some scientists in the field of Standardised Patient a such as Debor Nestel, Cathy Smith, fred Stevens and we have talked about cultural diversity and simulated Patients. i have also contact with Elizabeth Krajic Kachur regarding to run a share project regarding standardized Student. She is Director of Medical Education Development in New York, USA |
|
Your experiences about the travel processes(Providing ticket, accommodation,...) : |
I made contract with my agency so i do not find problem however when i was return to Iran i missed the airoplane in Duheh. |
|
Please give a briefing of your own observations and outcomes of the congress: : |
I was active in the AMEE conference through three parts; first, having presentation to share my own experience to other scientists. Second to participate in different sessions of conference such as symposium, workshop ….. learn about the recent trend in medical education and hot topics in this area which mainly were consist of : Simulation, Inter professional Education, CME .. . by listening to experts presentation and discussing with them. I attended in the workshop entitle" Integrating Simulated Patient Methodology into our Educational context", presented by Debora Nestel and Cathy Smith.
And third I met some of the well-known medical educationists, as well as my colleagues in Karolina Institute, such as Professor Sari Ponzer and talk with them regarding my current projects. I had also met some of the scientists such as Debra
Through my short communication presentation regarding "Exploring Swedish Doctors’ Perceptions and Experience regarding Physician-Patient Communication Skill considering inter and cross cultural perspectives". I have started my speech through asking the question regarding participants' perception regarding communication skill with foreign patients. I found it to have an interactive lecture which was different from others.
I had also running workshop with my colleagues, in Association of Standardized Patients Educator (ASPE) regarding "Small Group Teaching with SPs: preparing faculty to manage student-SP simulations to enhance learning".- The schedule of the workshop is mentioned below:
Intended outcomes: In this pre-session participants will acquire a series of skill sets in management of teaching simulations with SPs, including enlisting SPs as co-teachers, using time outs, feedback/re-practice, and role modeling.
Who should attend: Faculty engaged in small group teaching with SPs
Format:
20 m Introduction: group shares past experiences with small group teaching with SPs—
30 m Presentation: Leaders review theory and strategies (re role play and student professional identity formation), including a take-home checklist of skills-
30 m Modeling: Leaders demonstrate the skills- 8-10 min Live modeling . One of the leader to take on role of interviewing student; other leader to play SP; other leaders play observing students. Third leader , can play either SP or student role based on the scenario.
30 m Small Group Practice: Group applies the principles to practice-teaching with SPs and simulated students—involves all leaders:
—divide participants into 2 small groups of 6 participants each to create fishbowls;
-- 3 leaders/small group: leader 1 conducts exercise; leader 2 plays SP
--participant 1 plays student & interviews SP.
--participant 2 plays faculty mentors and conducts role play with guidance from leader 1
--other participants observe
10m Small group debrief and application: Group reviews/revises checklist based on this experience and creates plans to implement in their home institutions what they learned in the pre-session (one of the 3 leaders in each group to lead this discussion) Cathy can lead discussion for either this session or last session or both
10m Large Group Debrief/wrap up: Further discussion
Level of workshop: intermediate
Dealing in international meeting had several advantages such as personal development and social development . Which are also important for our scientific life.
|